Barriers to the Engagement of Complementary and Integrative Health Providers in Public Health Responses to COVID-19: Recommendations From a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to explore barriers to the involvement of complementary and integrative health (CIH) providers in the public health response to COVID-19 and potential solutions for future involvement in public health crises. METHODS: An expert panel of 10 people, which included doctors of chiropractic, naturopathic doctors, public health practitioners, and researchers from the United States, was convened for a day-long online panel discussion. Facilitators asked panelists how CIH practitioners could contribute and be mobilized. We summarized themes and recommendations from the discussion. RESULTS: Despite their skills and resources, few CIH providers participated in public health efforts like testing and contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Panelists described that CIH professionals may not have participated in those efforts due to the CIH providers possibly not having sufficient public health training and limited contact with public health professionals, as well as policy and financial challenges during the pandemic. Panelists proposed solutions to these barriers, including more public health training, stronger formal relationships between CIH and public health organizations, and improved financial support for both CIH care and public health efforts. CONCLUSION: Through an expert panel discussion, we identified barriers that hindered the involvement of CIH providers in the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. During future pandemics in the United States, public health planners should recognize CIH providers as part of the existing labor resource, with clinical expertise and community-level connections that can be called upon in a crisis. During future events, CIH professional leaders should be more proactive in seeking out a supportive role and sharing their knowledge, skills, and expertise.

A single blinded, phase IV, adaptive randomised control trial to evaluate the safety of coadministration of seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccines (The FluVID study) (preprint)

Objectives: We evaluated the frequency of moderate and severe adverse events following coadministration of seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) versus placebo with COVID-19 vaccines among adults to support practice guidelines. Methods: FluVID is a participant-blinded, phase IV, randomised control trial. On the same day as the participant's scheduled COVID-19 vaccine, participants were randomised to receive SIV or saline placebo; those assigned placebo at visit one then received SIV a week later, and vice versa. Self-reported adverse events were collected for daily seven days following each visit. The primary endpoint was any solicited adverse event of at least moderate severity occurring up to seven days following receipt of SIV or placebo. This was modelled using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Analyses were performed by COVID-19 vaccine type and dose number. Results: Overall, 248 participants were enrolled; of these, 195 had received BNT162b2 and 53 had received mRNA1273 COVID-19 vaccines according to national guidelines. After randomisation, 119 were assigned to receive SIV and 129 were assigned to receive placebo at visit one. Adverse events were most frequently reported as mild (grade 1) in nature. Among 142 BNT162b2 booster dose one and 43 BNT162b2 booster dose two recipients, the posterior median risk difference for moderate/severe adverse events following SIV versus placebo was 13% (95% credible interval [CrI] -0.03 to 0.27) and 13% (95%CrI -0.37 to 0.12), respectively. Among 18 mRNA1273 booster dose one and 35 mRNA1273 booster dose two recipients, the posterior median risk difference of moderate/severe adverse events following influenza vaccine versus placebo was 6% (95%CrI -0.29 to 0.41) and -4% (95%CrI -0.30 to 0.23), respectively. Conclusion: Adverse events following SIV and COVID-19 co-administration were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency to events following COVID-19 vaccine alone. We found no evidence to justify routine separation of SIV and COVID-19 vaccine doses.

Changing Severity and Epidemiology of Adults Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States After Introduction of COVID-19 Vaccines, March 2021-August 2022.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the changing epidemiology of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs research priorities and public health policies. METHODS: Among adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed, acute COVID-19 between 11 March 2021, and 31 August 2022 at 21 hospitals in 18 states, those hospitalized during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-predominant period (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/BA.5) were compared to those from earlier Alpha- and Delta-predominant periods. Demographic characteristics, biomarkers within 24 hours of admission, and outcomes, including oxygen support and death, were assessed. RESULTS: Among 9825 patients, median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 60 years (47-72), 47% were women, and 21% non-Hispanic Black. From the Alpha-predominant period (Mar-Jul 2021; N = 1312) to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineage-predominant period (Jun-Aug 2022; N = 1307): the percentage of patients who had ≥4 categories of underlying medical conditions increased from 11% to 21%; those vaccinated with at least a primary COVID-19 vaccine series increased from 7% to 67%; those ≥75 years old increased from 11% to 33%; those who did not receive any supplemental oxygen increased from 18% to 42%. Median (IQR) highest C-reactive protein and D-dimer concentration decreased from 42.0 mg/L (9.9-122.0) to 11.5 mg/L (2.7-42.8) and 3.1 mcg/mL (0.8-640.0) to 1.0 mcg/mL (0.5-2.2), respectively. In-hospital death peaked at 12% in the Delta-predominant period and declined to 4% during the BA.4/BA.5-predominant period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to adults hospitalized during early COVID-19 variant periods, those hospitalized during Omicron-variant COVID-19 were older, had multiple co-morbidities, were more likely to be vaccinated, and less likely to experience severe respiratory disease, systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and death.

Three-Month Symptom Profiles Among Symptomatic Adults With Positive and Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests: A Prospective Cohort Study From the INSPIRE Group.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines on preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations in Southwestern Alaska, January-December 2021.

The population in rural southwest Alaska has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. To assess the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, we analyzed data from the regional health system. We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) during January 16-December 3, 2021, against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection after a primary series or booster dose, and overall VE against hospitalization. VE of a primary series against symptomatic infection among adult residents was 91.3% (95% CI: 85.7, 95.2) during January 16-May 7, 2021, 50.3% (95% CI, 41.1%-58.8%) during July 17-September 24, and 37.0% (95% CI, 27.8-45.0) during September 25-December 3, 2021; VE of a booster dose during September 25-December 3, 2021, was 92.1% (95% CI: 87.2-95.2). During the overall study period, VE against hospitalization was 91.9% (95% CI: 85.4-95.5). COVID-19 vaccination offered strong protection against hospitalization and a booster dose restored protection against symptomatic infection.

Severe Fatigue and Persistent Symptoms at 3 Months Following Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron Time Periods: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection Biomarkers Reveal an Extended RSAD2 Dependant Metabolic Pathway (preprint)

We present compelling evidence for the existence of an evolutionary adaptive response to viral agents such as SARS-CoV-2, that results in the human in vivo biosynthesis of a family of compounds with potential antiviral activity. Using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, we detected a characteristic spin-system motif indicative of the presence of an extended panel of urinary and serum metabolites during the acute viral phase. The structure of eight of nucleoside analogues was elucidated (six of which have not previously been reported in human urine), and subsequently confirmed by total-synthesis and matrix spiking. The molecular structures of the nucleoside analogues and their correlation with an array of serum cytokines, including IFN-2, IFN-{gamma} and IL-10, suggest an association with the viperin enzyme contributing to an endogenous innate immune defense mechanism against viral infection.

Multiple infliximab biosimilar switches appear to be safe and effective in a real-world inflammatory bowel disease cohort.

BACKGROUND: Switching from originator infliximab (IFX) to biosimilar IFX is effective and safe. However, data on multiple switching are scarce. The Edinburgh inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) unit has undertaken three switch programmes: (1) Remicade to CT-P13 (2016), (2) CT-P13 to SB2 (2020), and (3) SB2 to CT-P13 (2021). OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint of this study was to assess CT-P13 persistence following switch from SB2. Secondary endpoints included persistence stratified by the number of biosimilar switches (single, double and triple), effectiveness and safety. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, cohort study. All adult IBD patients on IFX biosimilar SB2 underwent an elective switch to CT-P13. Patients were reviewed in a virtual biologic clinic with protocol driven collection of clinical disease activity, C-reactive protein (CRP), faecal calprotectin (FC), IFX trough/antibody levels, and drug survival. RESULTS: 297 patients (CD n = 196 [66%], ulcerative colitis/inflammatory bowel disease unclassified n = 101, [34%]) were switched (followed-up: 7.5 months [6.8-8.1]). This was the third, second and first IFX switch for 67/297 (22.5%), 138/297 (46.5%) and 92/297 (31%) of the cohort respectively. 90.6% of patients remained on IFX during follow-up. The number of switches was not independently associated with IFX persistence after adjusting for confounders. Clinical (p = 0.77), biochemical (CRP ≤5 mg/ml; p = 0.75) and faecal biomarker (FC<250 µg/g; p = 0.63) remission were comparable at baseline, week 12 and week 24. CONCLUSION: Multiple successive switches from IFX originator to biosimilars are effective and safe in patients with IBD, irrespective of the number of IFX switches.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June-October 2021: A multi-site prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership. METHODS: In June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated. RESULTS: In June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel "very concerned" about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination-being 'more receptive' was derived from motivation to protect one's own or others' health and resume usual activities; being 'less receptive' was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention. CONCLUSION: This study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.

Point Prevalence Estimates of Activity-Limiting Long-Term Symptoms among U.S. Adults ≥1 Month After Reported SARS-CoV-2 Infection, November 1, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Although most adults infected with SARS-CoV-2 fully recover, a proportion have ongoing symptoms, or post-COVID conditions (PCC), after infection. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the number of US adults with activity-limiting PCC on November 1, 2021. METHODS: We modeled the prevalence of PCC using reported infections occurring from February 1, 2020 - September 30, 2021, and population-based, household survey data on new activity-limiting symptoms ≥1 month following SARS-CoV-2 infection. From these data sources, we estimated the number and proportion of US adults with activity-limiting PCC on November 1, 2021, as 95% uncertainty intervals, stratified by sex and age. Sensitivity analyses adjusted for under-ascertainment of infections and uncertainty about symptom duration. RESULTS: On November 1, 2021, at least 3.0-5.0 million US adults were estimated to have activity-limiting PCC of ≥1 month duration, or 1.2%-1.9% of US adults. Population prevalence was higher in females (1.4%-2.2%) than males. The estimated prevalence after adjusting for under-ascertainment of infections was 1.7%-3.8%. CONCLUSION: Millions of US adults were estimated to have activity-limiting PCC. These estimates can support future efforts to address the impact of PCC on the U.S. population.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June–October, 2021: a multi-site prospective study

Introduction Vaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership. Methods In June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated. Results In June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9%) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel "very concerned” about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6% vs. 43.3%, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5% reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination—being ‘more receptive' was derived from motivation to protect one's own or others' health and resume usual activities;being ‘less receptive' was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention. Conclusion This study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.

How to Conduct International Geriatric Rehabilitation Research?

With an ageing global population and an increasing focus on aging in place, the number of people in need of geriatric rehabilitation (GR) is rapidly increasing. As current GR practice is very heterogenous, cross-country comparisons could allow us to learn from each other and optimise the effectiveness of GR. However, international GR research comes with many challenges. This article summarises the facilitators and barriers relating to the recruitment of rehabilitation centres, the inclusion of patients, and data collection, as experienced by experts in the field of international GR research. The three most important methodological recommendations for conducting cross-national collaborative research in the field of GR are (1) make use of existing (inter)national networks and social media to aid recruitment of GR centres; (2) clearly define the GR treatment, setting, and patient characteristics in the inclusion criteria; and (3) use a hierarchical study structure to communicate transparently and regularly with both national and local coordinators. International GR research would greatly benefit from the implementation of a core dataset in regular GR care. Therefore, future studies should focus on developing an international consensus regarding the outcomes and corresponding cross-culturally validated measurement instruments to be used during GR.

Use of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Tests by US Infectious Disease Physicians: Results of an Emerging Infections Network Survey, March 2022.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States-based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Methods: In March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered. Results: Of 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post-COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making. Conclusions: Practicing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Estimated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against seroconversion from SARS-CoV-2 Infection, March-October, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infections remains important to inform public health responses. Estimation of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection might provide an alternative measure of the benefit of vaccination against infection. METHODS: We estimated mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against development of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in March-October 2021, during which the Delta variant became predominant. Participants were enrolled from four participating healthcare systems in the United States, and completed electronic surveys that included vaccination history. Dried blood spot specimens collected on a monthly basis were analyzed for anti-spike antibodies, and, if positive, anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. We used detection of new anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to indicate SARS-CoV-2 infection, and estimated VE by comparing 154 case-participants with new detection of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to 1,540 seronegative control-participants matched by calendar period. Using conditional logistic regression, we estimated VE ≥ 14 days after the 2nd dose of an mRNA vaccine compared with no receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose, adjusting for age group, healthcare worker occupation, urban/suburban/rural residence, healthcare system region, and reported contact with a person testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among individuals who completed a primary series, estimated VE against seroconversion from SARS-CoV-2 infection was 88.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.6%-93.9%) after any mRNA vaccine, 87.8% (95% CI, 75.9%-93.8%) after BioNTech vaccine and 91.7% (95% CI, 75.7%-97.2%) after Moderna vaccine. VE was estimated to be lower ≥ 3 months after dose 2 compared with < 3 months after dose 2, and among participants who were older or had underlying health conditions, although confidence intervals overlapped between subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: VE estimates generated using infection-induced antibodies were consistent with published estimates from clinical trials and observational studies that used virologic tests to confirm infection during the same period. Our findings support recommendations for eligible adults to remain up to date with COVID-19 vaccination.

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Living without eosinophils: evidence from mouse and man.

The enduring view of eosinophils, as immune effector cells whose primary function is host defence against infection by helminths and other microbial pathogens, sets the stage for a fundamental question regarding the safety of therapeutic eosinophil depletion. If eosinophils are significantly reduced or altogether depleted in an effort to alleviate the negative effects of tissue eosinophilia and eosinophilic inflammation in conditions such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome, would these patients become susceptible to infection or another illness? Development of mouse models in whom the eosinophil lineage has been ablated, observations in patients naturally lacking eosinophils and data from studies of eosinophil-depleting medical therapies indicate that the absence of eosinophils is not detrimental to health. The evidence available to date, as presented in this review, supports the conclusion that even if certain homeostatic roles for the eosinophil may be demonstrable in controlled animal models and human in vitro settings, the evolution of the human species appears to have provided sufficient immune redundancy such that one may be hale and hearty without eosinophils.

Post-COVID conditions and healthcare utilization among adults with and without disabilities-2021 Porter Novelli FallStyles survey.

BACKGROUND: Adults with disabilities are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease; whether adults with disabilities are at an increased risk for ongoing symptoms after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency and duration of long-term symptoms (>4 weeks) and health care utilization among adults with and without disabilities who self-report positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. METHODS: Data from a nationwide survey of 4510 U.S. adults administered from September 24, 2021-October 7, 2021, were analyzed for 3251 (79%) participants who self-reported disability status, symptom(s), and SARS-CoV-2 test results (a positive test or only negative tests). Multivariable models were used to estimate the odds of having ≥1 COVID-19-like symptom(s) lasting >4 weeks by test result and disability status, weighted and adjusted for socio-demographics. RESULTS: Respondents who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had higher odds of reporting ≥1 long-term symptom (with disability: aOR = 4.50 [95% CI: 2.37, 8.54] and without disability: aOR = 9.88 [95% CI: 7.13, 13.71]) compared to respondents testing negative. Among respondents who tested positive, those with disabilities were not significantly more likely to experience long-term symptoms compared to respondents without disabilities (aOR = 1.65 [95% CI: 0.78, 3.50]). Health care utilization for reported symptoms was higher among respondents with disabilities who tested positive (40%) than among respondents without disabilities who tested positive (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing symptoms among adults with and without disabilities who also test positive for SARS-CoV-2 are common; however, the frequency of health care utilization for ongoing symptoms is two-fold among adults with disabilities.

UK endoscopy workload and workforce patterns: is there potential to increase capacity? A BSG analysis of the National Endoscopy Database.

Background: The lack of comprehensive national data on endoscopy activity and workforce hampers strategic planning. The National Endoscopy Database (NED) provides a unique opportunity to address this in the UK. We evaluated NED to inform service planning, exploring opportunities to expand capacity to meet service demands. Design: Data on all procedures between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 were extracted from NED. Endoscopy activity and endoscopist workforce were analysed. Results: 1 639 640 procedures were analysed (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) 693 663, colonoscopy 586 464, flexible sigmoidoscopy 335 439 and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 23 074) from 407 sites by 4990 endoscopists. 89% of procedures were performed in NHS sites. 17% took place each weekday, 10% on Saturdays and 6% on Sundays. Training procedures accounted for 6% of total activity, over 99% of which took place in NHS sites. Median patient age was younger in the independent sector (IS) (51 vs 60 years, p<0.001). 74% of endoscopists were male. Gastroenterologists and surgeons each comprised one-third of the endoscopist workforce; non-medical endoscopists (NMEs) comprised 12% yet undertook 23% of procedures. Approximately half of endoscopists performing OGD (52%) or colonoscopies (48%) did not meet minimum annual procedure numbers. Conclusion: This comprehensive analysis reveals endoscopy workload and workforce patterns for the first time across both the NHS and the IS in all four UK nations. Half of all endoscopists perform fewer than the recommended minimum annual procedure numbers: a national strategy to address this, along with expansion of the NME workforce, would increase endoscopy capacity, which could be used to exploit latent weekend capacity.